Posted
by
Soulskill
on Tuesday May 01, 2012 @10:27PM
from the ay-carumba dept.

itwbennett writes "In a filing to the FCC, Bay Area Rapid Transit general manager Grace Crunican defended last August's mobile shutdown, saying that 'a temporary disruption of cell phone service, under extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent, is a necessary tool to protect passengers.' Taking the opposing position, digital rights groups, including Public Knowledge, Free Press, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the FCC (PDF) that 'wireless interruption will necessarily prohibit the communications of completely innocent parties — precisely those parties closest to the site where the emergency is located or anticipated.'"

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

Honestly, transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet. While it's nice to have, it's not a necessity and whining about it being turned off to avert what they believed was going to be a bad event really probably wasn't all that terrible of an idea.

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

Its increadibly inconviniant, and the airlines are starting to show how unnessessary it is. My own feeling is that they did that in an attempt to conceal the fact that BART was broken again. Had nothing to do with safety.

This is what I think anyone can object to. If anyone actually believed this was about, "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent", then it'd be understandable.

But that's like... terrorist with a remote trigger wired to a mobile phone. Not, "Aw god dammit, a bunch of stupid college kids are gunna protest something again." Then you're just getting nasty about suppressing something you don't like, and you're inconveniencing a gajillion other people in the process.

Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.

Give me a break. There are NO, repeat NO medical devices that require constant wireless communication with anything. Otherwise, people would simply keel over in the various Faraday cages that we surround ourselves with throughout the day.

How many faraday cages do you surround yourself with during the day? I can leave my apartment, take the elevator down to the parking garage, hop in my car, drive to work, take the elevator up to the 3rd floor and walk to my office, all without dropping my phone call. (ok, so I've never don't it all in one contiguous call, but I've used my phone on each of those segments individually)

I think this is separate from the core argument, I don't think anyone would make such a device. However, but a building with metal siding and few windows might be sufficient. Except for the fact that I installed a repeater, some parts of my shop would completely drop detectable signal, other parts too weak to let useful signal through. Some stores are like that too, I can get in the middle of the building and get no signal. This counts a Target, Walmart and a local grocery store. Anyone working in a wa

Lets look at the other problem, lets say there are mulitple problems, a crash say, and somewhere else close by a mugging in progress. If communications are cut off, no 911 access, no alerting of police. You don't think that knowledge would foster mob action akin to the lootings that happened in cities during the second blackout. The first gave people the idea that and they were prepared to act the during the second.

Here you would have people trapped, and cut off from help. You think that is wise. Bart is j

Honestly, transit (air and subway) is one of the few places you could get some peace and quiet.

. ..

You've never been on BART have you?
BART is the loudest subway I've ever seen and goes over 100 decibels repeatedly.
After riding on quality systems in other places such as Munich I find that BART is just a technical embarrassment.

As far as turning off the cell data coverage... BART consistently has the worst station announcements and the worst station signage. Without the data coverage the only way I can figure out which station I'm at half the time is to get the station map up on the cell and count stops from an identifiable station. I'm really at a loss how a system that big isn't internally audited for simple things like clarity and volume of station announcements. And the lack of clear, obvious, unmistakable station signage is just stupid negligence or apathy on the management's part. 5 minutes on the S-Bahn in Munich will show you how worse then just "Bad" BART is.

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

If they had temporarily banned TV news crews from covering the protests "in the interest of public safety" would that be not such a big deal? After all, they are very intrusive, block emergency access, etc.

You know, I'm no fun of poor public decision-making but honestly turning off the data in underground public transportation seriously does not seem like that big of a deal to me.

I'm sorry, I just don't see what possible "event" could warrant making the populace unable to communicate with each other, unless said "event" was created by the people who are turning off communications.

Second. Imagine if a fire broke out, or you had a heart attack, or somebody was being attacked; How would you report it without your phone working?

Third. The only reason BART shut it down was because they wanted to prevent any kind of protests against them (BART police shot a suspect at point blank range, while the suspect was pinned on the ground by multiple police officers).

Fourth. interfearing with communications are the acts of totalitarian governments around the world, and it is not compatible with Freedom.

I certainly hope she doesn't have family and face the need of calling them to inform them about a situation they may run into.I wonder if shutting all communications down in Manhattan in September 11 would had significantly helped as this person is claiming.

If you assume that "imminent harm" (decided upon without a judge, I am pretty sure) is a good enough reason to kill cell phones.

We're not talking about killing cell phones, we're talking about turning off a signal relay.

Driving a car is a privilege too.

And what you're claiming is that if the government can shut down a road (without judicial review) for safety reasons, then that means they can just take your car away from you entirely. Which is just about as fucking retarded as you can get.

But here's what most of you are missing entirely. The 911 center has a limited capability to handle calls. They have a limited number of incoming trunks and a limited number of op

I just got this mental image of Princess Grace franctically finger stabbing her phone as the BART train heads towards a section of track that used to be there, but no longer is. Oh ya, that was at the last major earthquake in the city.

Considering that Bart is tasked with the safety of their passengers who would you suggest would be a better choice? Bart did not cut off all protest; they just curtailed protest in a dangerous controlled area. Do you really want hundreds of agitated people crowded platforms with trains whizzing by? The protest could just as well have been done above ground in a much safer manner.

As usual you didn't answer the question but rather decided to troll.You might also look into the case [wikipedia.org] a little more before making bold statements.1. There was a near riot going on at the platform.2. Grant was involved in fighting on the train.3. Oscar Grant was not restrained as the BART officer never had control of his hands (even the family in the wrongful death suit agrees on this point). He had escaped custody at least once before and returned to the train4. As Grand never surrendered he was never searc

That would actually be an entertaining way to solve this problem. If BART says they're going to turn off the cell service, just phone in a bomb threat saying that there's a bomb that will explode if the service is turned off.

It should be trivial to keep the transmitters running but to stop routing calls. All incoming calls are not getting through, all outgoing calls report "busy" or "no answer."

But my detonator sends a request to a remote server which is supposed to sign the reply using a symmetric cryptographic key whose paired key resides on the detonator. If if doesn't get a correctly signed response after trying for several minutes, the detonator explodes.

If I don't want to buy a data plan for my detonator phone, it can use text messages or DTMF phones over a voice call to contact the other computer.

I don't know what the difference is. There is shitty, background service through about the Montgomery station, with blackout points down below the City (don't do that ride much), and MacArthur through Berkeley is a blackout. I know, bitching about spotty service, etc. but try to get anything done on the train. I just read and don't even bother.

Rarely take bart, only when I have business in Oakland, and every experience has been from inconvinant to pure hell.

OK, BART isn't exactly an Uber cab but it's hardly "pure hell". I used to commute between Daly City and Embarcadero each morning and afternoon, and it was nothing if not unexciting. The trains departed on time and arrived on time, and the only inconvenience was that I couldn't refresh Twitter or text my wife between stations while underground. Now I frequently ride between Fruitvale and Embarcadero, and the least pleasant aspect is that you get jostled around a little bit on the way through Oakland. I even

I like your spelling lessons, where do I sign up? So far in this thread you've spelt "inconvenient" 3 different ways, none of them correct, and once in ALL CAPS (because we all know CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL).

And spare me the "I'm dyslexic", before you even start. Firefox has a spell-checker BUILT INTO IT these days. You're not dyslexic, you're just stupid. Also, I had a good friend at university who was (severely) dyslexic, and his misspellings were always consistent. Wrong, but consistently wro

If I use a personal jammer to silence that idiot yakking away at 120dB about who is sleeping with who and who has the funny sores on them, it's cool as long as I do it so that 'someone' doesn't kick his ass?

How so? If I can't even cause a 3 second disruption within 20 ft of my location to knock out 1 phone call, why is it OK for BART to black out large areas. Especially considering that I can personally verify that there is no emergency or lost child in range and they can't.

The real reason they shut off cell phone service was to disrupt the electronic communication of the organizers of the protest. If there was a 'safety' reason, it was to disrupt the protest in the interest of safety. Down that path lies the complete elimination of public assembly 'in the interest of safety'.

I could see their argument if say they had a credible threat of a cellphone-triggered bomb, but trying to disrupt a protest's electronic communication does NOT cut it.

Think of this scenario (the one that BART is afraid would happen);1. Spotters are deployed to every Bart station and report the number of police at each station to a central command.2. The central command selects a number of stations and sends a text message to all spotters and protesters to converge on those stations.3. Hundreds of protesters converge on a small number of stations overloading the platforms.4. People get pushed off the overloaded platforms onto the tracks where they are hit by trains or kil

Yes I can fully see how a smart terrorist would concoct a plot to trigger a bomb using an unreliable technology in one of the least reliable places it is likely to work.

Terrorist 1: Today is our day of glory. Those American pigs will feel the full wrath of Allah's glory. Destroy the subway!Terrorist 2: (Dials Phone) Mwahahahahahaha!Sexy Voice: "The person you are calling is unavailable, if you would like to leave a message please do so after the beep." *beep*Terrorist 2: Hello bomb? Please go off when you g

Agreed. I'd like to add that even if disabling (read: literally simply turning off some BART-operated bi-directional amplifiers and/or a DAS) cell service does effectively disrupt the organization of an ongoing protest, that this simply moves the protesters into more conventional forms of organization.

Simple audio and both licensed and unlicensed land mobile 2-way radio come to mind immediately as being absolutely useful for such a task. Leaders in the tunnel can communicate with intermediates outside th

Yeesh, whadda think people did before cell phones in an emergency? I believe they used to think, and act (and in that order) -- not just dial 911 and then stand there with a cell phone camera watching the poor bastard suffer. I, for one, wish they'd make the change permanent: Imagine riding public transportation without some obnoxious mouth breather yelling at his girlfriend the entire trip, while you're packed in like sardines with other passengers. It'd be better than Chuck Norris descending from heaven a

There is a distinct difference between stopping a service that you pay for, and someone not allowing you to freeload anymore.

If you ride BART, you are subject to their rules. They offer you the FREE service of extended cell antennas, but offer no agreement or contract for them to actually work. If they did, don't you think people would have sued them already for their crappy service?

Subway cars have dedicated telephony. If there's an emergency, and you think that you by yourself on your own cellphone can do you any good (like every other passenger on the train, compared with the authorities in place to deal with it), you're horribly naive (and probably a libertarian.) Cellphones do not have mandated reliability characteristics like landlines, so no rules are being broken here. In the event of an emergency, the passengers will likely clog any femtocells, full cells, or repeaters regardl

If you think all emergencies in and around Bart service areas occur within reach of the emergency callbox inside a train, and that those callboxes always work, I'm afraid you're the one being naive.

Frankly Bart doesn't have a justification for cutting off service. Protests like this first occurred decades before cell phones were invented. If people really are rushing the station for a protest, guess what? Stations have doors that can be closed. Big heavy ones that can't be kicked down.

To turn off the cells in an emergency BART management must know about the emergency. They're quite capable of informing the appropriate emergency services themselves, & probably faster than some random member of the public could.

Wasn't this whole situation kinda like flying. During take off and landing you are required to turn off all electronic devices, including your cellphones. The reason for this is to prevent interference with the plane's electronics, which could be life threatening. If their goal was to prevent deadly riots I believe that they are within their rights to turn off a service.

If BART really wanted to they could end the contracts with the communication companies and then you wouldn't be able to use your cellp

So for all transit operators out there, the apparent takeaway from all this is to not provide any form of cell service in weak areas. Offering a repeater that you can control, and disabling it can be considered a breech of freedoms and make you liable.

Better to just avoid the whole issue and not do anything that'll make your commuters happier. If they want cell service, they can lobby their cell carriers to point antennas directed into the tunnels themselves. And nevermind emergencies - there's always the emergency phones in the trains.

There's a disconnect between principle and practice here. Authorities should absolutely be able to disable communications in "extreme circumstances where harm and destruction are imminent". A cell-phone triggered bomb on the train, for example.

But what does that have to do with last August's shutdown? Harm and violence were not imminent in that case. You'd be hard-pressed to argue that violence was even *likely*.

We have given the authorities tools to use to stop mass violence -- everything from telecomm

Living this close to the former iron curtain, I have heard and read that kind of apologies before. Every time there was an unrest in one of those countries, something like this would be sprouted. "For the safety", "to protect order", "to keep people from misusing tools" and "what could have happened if we didn't step in".

That action by BART was illegal, plain and simple. I can't wait to hear the amount of the fine they receive!

Apparently its illegal to jam cell phone transmitters, but not technically illegal to unplug them.Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.

It may come down to who actually owns the cell/wifi transmitters in the underground stations where commercial services can't reach without the transit authority's assistance. It may end up being similar to cutting off the water to a coffee vendor in the stations - purely a co

By that logic it's quite acceptable to cut gas, water, power and a lot of other things to any place you might wish (provided you're the government), for no other reason than "I wanna", because humanity survived for ages without any of those. Don't like that blogger? Snip his wire!

I think plaintiffs have a strong case, and I hope they win, but the debate isn't enhanced by hysterical claims about how this is "illegal, plain and simple" by people whose grasp of the law is little better than a herring's, or by flawed analogies, or by comparisons

It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.

The problem is that it is a service that people rely on. Similar to how we rely on the grocery store having groceries and us not having to stock up on food because they might not. We got used to going there and buying food in case our fridge gets empty. If you take that away, people get into a situation that can be dangerous be

It's not illegal plain and simple, but if I got you right, your argument was that there wasn't a cell service in the area until recently, so what's the deal? Correct me if I am wrong.

It wasn't an argument, it was an observation. Another observation I can make is that the overwhelming majority of BART track is above ground, where cell service works fine.

You can draw what conclusions you want--in fact, you can conclude that because people were accustomed to the lack of underground phone service (and the fact that service was still available on most of BART), that the rioters were less likely to be affected than normal riders, so BART's actions did more harm than good. But I wasn't posti

A contract dispute, a civil matter, and quite possibly not something under the FCC jurisdiction.

Maybe the Cell carriers sue BART for disruption of services by cutting power to their micro-cells or something.

But Bart would likely have been one party to the contract to provide power to the carrier's micro-cells, whereas Tortuous Interference pretty much requires action by a third party, not a party to the contracts.

Was there an "out" in Bart's contract with these carriers?

Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy [wpsantennas.com], which they would be fully within their right to turn off?

There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.

Were there even Carrier Contracts involved, or was BART using off the shelf Cellular repeaters that anyone can buy, which they would be fully within their right to turn off?

There are a lot of questions to be answered before some guy on slash dot can pronounce something illegal, plain and simple.

Sure. But what we can do is pronounce it immoral and a societally destructive abuse of power. And spare me the claims of BART being a private enterprise - they operate at the will of the public even if they have wrapped themselves in fine print and legalese to try to shirk their responsibilities.

but not technically illegal to unplug them.
Its entirely possible the FCC will find itself powerless in this fight, because there is no mandatory "must operate" regulations in place.

Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data). The FCC has complete authority to regulate this matter [from this Act].

If you are going to rush in and pronounce something "illegal, plain and simple" please provide your credentials, and what year you were appointed to the bench.

It has yet to be established that the cell service in the subway was common carrier.

If you provide these services to the general public [which BART did], it is common carrier. Not even BART is disputing this. Their argument is more along the line of the circumstances justified an exception to the rules.

It may have been simple off the shelf cell repeaters operated by Bart itself.

It is illegal for individuals and businesses to install/use cell repeaters. Only a licensed carrier may do this. That is, if you're a business/individual, the carrier/licensee must install/maintain the repeater for you. A rogue repeater subjects the owner to possible equipment forfeitur

You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.

You are not a common carrier simply because you install a cell repeater to serve your own customers in your own premises. They aren't disputing being a common carrier because nobody said they were such.

BART is a common carrier. You're confusing it with a private business. They're not disputing it because they want to be one to get the safe harbor provisions [which I mentioned in my last message, but you chose not to read].

Cell repeaters are not illegal, and you can go here and buy one for yourself:

It's not illegal to buy one. It is illegal to use one unless you have a license. Particularly, if you've set it up incorrectly [and are causing interference], you'll have a representative from your local cell phone company showing up on your doorstep. You must have the consent of th

The FAQ you cited [cleverly] omitted any reference to legality of operation. You got bamboozled into thinking that just because you can buy one, it's legal to use it. It's also legal to buy a cell phone jammer but it is not legal to use it.

These are fully FCC approved units, just like your wifi router. No license required.You know, simply stating your ridiculous opinion without bothering to check any facts makes you loo like a total idiot.Everything on that page is a consumer device approved for installation in the home with no additional license. The FCC id is shown on each product.Check your facts. They are completely legal.

There was no jamming of any transmissions, stop trying to change the facts of the situation.

Uh, no. Cell phone operators [and telcos] are common carriers, subject to Title II regulations, under the Communications Act of 1934. Common carriers [by definition] are prohibited from discriminating service, based on the content of messages (e.g. voice, data).

The BART isn't a cell phone operator, telco, or in any other fashion a "common carrier". And even if they were, shutting down a transmitter is not illegal and does not discriminate based on service type as it affects ALL functions. Even then, a signal relay between you and the tower probably doesn't really qualify as a service disruption as the tower is essentially the "demarck" point, not the signal booster.

I'm surprised at the lack of outrage. BART is a governmental agency, with devolved powers from the State of California, its own police force, and a charter. If a city or county cut off wireless communication to prevent a protest, it would fly in the face of our incorporated first amendment rights to speech and assembly. From a legal standpoint, BART is held to the same standard.